Brick Linker's Limited and another Vs. Titas Gas Transmission & Distribution Co Ltd. and others, V ADC (2008) 653

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 799 of 2007

Judge: Md. Ruhul Amin ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Nawab Ali,Mr. Md. Taufique Hossain,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 653

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Brick Linker's Limited and another

Respondent: Titas Gas Transmission & Distribution Co Ltd. and others

Subject: Writ Jurisdiction,

Delivery Date: 2007-8-2

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin J
MM Ruhul Amin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
 
Brick Linker's Limited and another
 …………………Petitioners
Vs.
Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Company Ltd. and others
…………….........Respondents
 
Judgment
August 2, 2007.
 
The High Court Division disposed of the application upon observing “It appears that this application of the petitioner involved disputed facts which should be resolved between the parties themselves. So we direct both the parties to form a joint team with the competent persons from the both sides which will examine all the relevant materials including paid and unpaid bills issued by the respondents and the meter etc and will calculate out what actually is due to the petitioner, (if at all any) on account of regular bills only on the basis of actual consumption.”… (5)

In our view the petition for leave to appeal is a misconceived one. It also appears the writ petitioners are not interested in resolving the difference relating to payment of gas bills in the manner as directed by the High Court Division. … (7)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Md. Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent No. 4.
Not represented-Respondent Nos. 1-3 and 5-6.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 799 of 2007
(From the Judgment and Order dated June 4, 2007 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 7890 of 2006).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 4, 2007 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 7890 of 2006 disposing of the application filed in the aforesaid writ peti­tion seeking direction upon the writ respondent Nos. 1-5 to restore the gas connection of the petitioners' factory.
 
2. The writ petition was filed seeking direction on the respondent Nos. 1-6 to implement the observation made in writ petition No. 4083 of 2000 for settling the matter of interest calculated on the arrears gas bills issued in respect of the writ peti­tioners and also seeking declaration that by the insertion of interest in clause 16.1 of the Contract Form B of the respondent No.1 so far the same relates to "In case of default in making payment on interest at the rate of 1% per annum above the existing lending rate of the Commercial Bank prevailing on the date of default will be charged" inserted by the respondent No.1 should not be declared is an act of without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
 
3. The petition was filed seeking restoration of gas connection stating that at the time of issuance of Rule on August 20, 2006 an order of injunction was passed restraining the respondent Nos. 1-5 from disconnecting the gas connection of the petitioners' factory claiming arrears as interest. It was also stated that the petitioners paid gas bill regularly excluding the claim of interest upto February 2007 in pursuant to the order of the High Court Division, that there is no arrears of bills in respect of the petitioners' factory and that interest which is due remained unpaid because of the difference between the writ petitioners and the respondents." It has been stated that the respondents disconnected the gas connection of petitioners' factory on April 5, 2007.
 
4. The application for direction to the respondent Nos. 1-5 for restoring gas connection was opposed by the respondent No. 5 by filing affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that gas connection of the petitioners' factory has been disconnected for non payment of actual monthly gas bills and for non payment of interest on the bill amount and that an amount of Tk. 56,60,009.87 is also outstanding in respect of the petitioners' factory and this amount does not include interest, that notice was served upon the petitioners to pay the arrears gas bills but they did not pay any heed to the notice so served and as such for non-payment of gas bills gas connection of the petitioners  factory has been disconnected.
 
5. The High Court Division disposed of the application upon observing "It appears that this application of the petitioner involved disputed facts which should be resolved between the parties themselves. So we direct both the parties to form a joint team with the competent persons from both the sides which will examine all the relevant materials including paid and unpaid bills issued by the respondents and the meter etc and will calculate out what actually is due to the petitioner, (if at all any) on account of regular bills only on the basis of actual consumption".
 
6. We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record and perused the materials in the paper book.
 
7. In our view the petition for leave to appeal is a misconceived one. It also appears the writ petitioners are not inter­ested in resolving the difference relating to payment of gas bills in the manner as directed by the High Court Division.
 
In that view of the matter we find no reason to take exception to the order sought to be appealed and to interfere with the same.
 
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.